Posted
by
Unknown Lamer
on Wednesday September 26, 2012 @04:10AM
from the internet-replaces-the-airwaves dept.

_Sharp'r_ writes "Judge Flavio Peren of Mato Grosso do Sul state in Brazil has ordered the arrest of the President of Google Brazil, as well as the 24-hour shutdown of Google and Youtube for not removing videos attacking a mayoral candidate. Google is appealing, but has recently also faced ordered fines of $500K/day in Parana and the ordered arrest of another executive in Paraiba in similar cases."
Early reports indicated that the judge also ordered the arrest of the Google Brazil President, but the story when this was written is that the police haven't received any such order (and an earlier such order was overuled recently). The video is in violation of their pre-election laws.

Note that in this case it's about good censorship. Most countries on earth have these kind of pre-election rules to combat PR attack on the last hours of elections. Most sane countries have these laws. Since it's just 24 hours, it really just seems to ban it right before elections and is not some penalty on Google or Youtube. Google is intentionally breaking laws here and should be punished.

I've never heard of a law prohibiting the reporting of news or running of ads in the US close to elections. I have even seen political adds run after the polls are closed and we are waiting for the count (guess some people do not think that far ahead).

I would imagine any law limiting speech would be over turned pretty fast as out first amendment free speech has long been interpreted to be especially pertaining to political speech..

I've never heard of a law prohibiting the reporting of news or running of ads in the US close to elections

Then you missed out on part of McCain-Feingold, which did ban some speech along those lines. That's part of what the supreme court recently found to be unconstitutional: muzzling communication like that runs very contrary to one of the founding principles of our constitution. The law allowed, for example, a business like General Electric or News Corp (which both run media outlets, though of different political orientations) to use their editorial voices to communicate about candidates and ballot issues right up through poll closing - but prohibited others (like you or me, or groups we might join, like the NRA or Greenpeace and the like) from doing the same. Completely capricious, and justifiably shot down in the court. But it was the law of the land for a while there.

McCain-Feingold never prohibited speech by existing media at all. It had some prohibitions on paid speech. We have strong protections for people lobbying congress and strong laws against bribery. Paid and free speech have never been treated the same.

But it is always possible to sufficiently disguise paid speech as free. The Citizen's United case was about a propaganda film disguised as a for-profit movie. The promoters just exhibited it at a loss, but it was structured as a for-profit show. So how does one go about "proving" speech is paid in these corner cases? I think paid speech is what is fundamentally wrong with the US democracy, but there is an argument to be made that it is simply not workable to restrict it. The electorate just has to figu

One problem is that most existing media was exempted under McCain-Feingold, even though it's really also "paid" speech. It's not like the NY Times wasn't paying it's employees, wasn't paid by advertisers, etc... The bill seemed to imply that the media was unbiased, but someone else who wanted to publish something would be horrible.

Of course, the media was all for that distinction, since it increased their power relative to everyone else who was hobbled by the law. So all the media reports were about how won

Google should still be appealing the rulings, but they should also just "forget" all the official Brazilian government websites, all the political websites of current Brazilian officials, etc... until the appeals go through... add a big blank spot at all their official locations on google maps... and blacklist any brazilian government email addresses for sending and receiving via gmail, registering on any of the google sites, etc...

I mean, if they don't want Google to publish stuff on the internet on their

Right. There are many fundamentally broken things in the USA democracy - Funding and advertising is one of them. Most countries I know of have strict laws regulating who can fund a party, what are the tops for funding - And how can that be spent. Most countries also require a given period (here in Mexico, 72 hours) before the election where no advertising can be made. Campaigning is over, and it should not distract the citizen - This is done in part because of past experiences where i.e. rallies for party X were conducted in areas that would vote for party Y, making it hard for voters to reach the booths.

The rules have been created in the last 20 years - that's roughly the period where a viable democracy has been seriously considered by the government. So, yes, there are many things not to be imitated in Mexico. There are many that are worth checking out. For instance, AFAIK (and I have done my fair bit of reading) the USA's electoral college system is unique in the democratic world, and it is the main responsible that the USA has a two-party system where no third voice is ever heard (and the two important

It's the same if CNN of Fox news broadcast this type of stuff during election day (which I assume is illegal in America)

This is not the case. The US has possibly the strongest protection of freedom of speech in the world, and any such law would be in violation of the constitution.

But most other countries do consider freedom of speech to be a right that should be balanced with other rights. A fair election being one of them, and the belief that public criticism of a candidate without adequate time for the candidate to address the accusations would violate this right.

But that's not the case. Here in Brazil censorship is becoming common when politicians are involved. In 2009 one of the largest newspapers in Brazil was prevented from publishing news about a police operation against the son of the President of the Senate Jose Sarney. His son, Fernando Sarney. His son, Fernando Sarney, investigated for corruption is not politician and 2009 was not a electoral year, but a federal judge blocked the newspaper Estado de Sao Paulo to publish news about the police investigation.

It's the same if CNN of Fox news broadcast this type of stuff during election day (which I assume is illegal in America)

You would be assuming wrong. CNN or FOX can have a 24 hour presentation where they openly advocate for any candidates they want and say just about anything they want. The protections regarding political speech in the USA are very strong.

It's the same if CNN of Fox news broadcast this type of stuff during election day (which I assume is illegal in America)

You would be assuming wrong. CNN or FOX can have a 24 hour presentation where they openly advocate for any candidates they want and say just about anything they want. The protections regarding political speech in the USA are very strong.

Interesting.

Certainly in the UK, once polling opens that's it for anything political. No exit polls, no party political broadcasts, and very guarded reporting from journalists.

But then we don't have a (broadcast) media that openly campaigns for specific parties. We don't have political advertising either, at least not monetary advertising (parties get fair broadcast time based on how "major" they are)

The newspaper industry often takes sides (It's the Sun wot won it), but the broadcast industry is a haven of impartiality compared with the U.S. media (but then our TV in general is much less eye-clawing)

Yes, but libel laws, prohibitions on death threats, and prohibitions on publishing government secrets are also censorship. Censorship itself is just a label. Calling something that doesn't automatically make it bad.

Google however has to be notified of these violations. Each and every violation has to be discovered, reported and confirmed. A you tube video can be re-released at depth throughout the world and Brazil only has jurisdiction over publication and readership within Brazil and definitely more on the publication side and far less on the readership side. So if the video is uploaded outside of Brazil and read by people outside of Brazil then Brazil has zero jurisdiction.

This is the new media we are talking about here. It is wider and busier and less controlable than ever before. The mob is the media. Let's consider how we control such media. It's pretty hard to imagine already. Let's get our news from 4chan.

But regardless what the 1st Amendment protects is speech based on ideas. It is perfectly legal to publish government secrets, which is why the NYTimes or the Guardian were fine in the wikileaks case. What is illegal is to pass information to unauthorized agencies. Death threats are speech which doesn't have particular idea content but rather are actions. That can be regulated.

As for libel laws. Libel laws here are rather loose the burden of proof is very high, high enough that in practice they are rare

case in point pornography is recognized as to be limited to certain class of ages, and various type of media are limited by ages. Also you can't yell fire in theater, another good type of censorship and similar. Finally libel laws are certainly limitation and therefor censorship of some type of speech, and in some country if you swear and insult a policeman you can get fined. In such a case , the censorship is to make sure *everybody* is on the same level shortly before the election, without a media blitz.

"case in point pornography is recognized as to be limited to certain class of ages, and various type of media are limited by ages"

That doesn't mean any of this is actually good though. It's such a controversal subject that no one's really got the balls to study it, but those that have have suggested that just as controlled provision of drugs to addicts is a better way to ween them off it than simply trying to ban the substance outright, that working with paedophiles and controlling their access to this sort

We like to watch entertainment of the things we like or are interested in. We watch food shows. No one has a problem with that. We watch beauty contests. No one... okay, 'few' have a problem with that. Olympics? Fishing? Golf? Fighting!! You name it; if someone likes it, there's a form of entertainment which will be produced about it. But because it involves sex, a rather basic and extremely universal pleasure in the animal world, we have to say "oh no..."

What we fear, dislike or disapprove of about sex has more to do with religious and social values than anything else. Remove those from the equation and you will see less "forbidden fruit." Suddenly people aren't making unsubstantiated claims like "it harms children!" You know what harms children? Curiosity which isn't managed by adults. Knives, fire, fireworks, guns, heights, roads and streets... sex isn't quite as dangerous as any of those other things and yet somehow we are more concerned over whether or not they know what their 'things' are for than just about anything else.

Many countries legally impose a moratorium or broadcasters impose a code of conduct prior to an election to ensure it is as free and fair as possible. So as to provide voters with a period of reflection prior to the vote and to stop last minute electioneering and underhanded tactics that could adversely affect the outcome. e.g. one candidate tweets that another has dropped out the race, or is a child molestor etc. But oh its censorship so it's bad right?

As an American... yes I'd rather the government not get to decide who is allowed to say what at any point, particularly laws that can be applied to politicians. I don't know how restrictions on speech make things more "free". I could see an argument for "fair", since these sorts of tactics can influence elections on the margins.

Moratoriums / embargos are put in place for the reasons I cited, to stop news and media or individuals involved with the elections from interfering with an election in progress. It's also why certain actions might be criminal offences in the context of an election that otherwise would just be garden variety civil law, e.g. making a false statement about a candidate's character or behaviour could be a criminal offence instead of slander.

Can't speak of all companies but in the UK and Ireland it's not the go

So in your view noone can be blamed for the consequences of their speech?

Let's say I take a 5 years old, I convince him that jumping out of the window is safe and I watch him do it. I would not be guilty of anything in regard of the law? After all, I just talked to the boy! That has to be legal!

And if your answer is that I would be found guilty, it means my speech can bring me to jail, so in effect, I do not benefit from free speech since I can be jailed for saying something a judge find objectionable.

In countries where this kind of bans are enacted, private actors are not censored. People are not forbidden to speak their minds. However, *political parties*, being the actors in controversy, are public figures subject to laws.There is another law, at least here in Mexico, that requires groups running political advertisements to clearly identify themselves - This, because in 2006 we had many "black campaign" ads on TV (on a multimillionary contract) that were not "signed" by any identifiable actor, and wer

I can still see a case to be made for a limitation on "political" speech immediately leading up to a vote. It would have to be of very limited scope. But there could be great benefit. Some of the abuses mentioned here would be prevented: e.g. not giving a candidate time to respond, rallying near polling stations to prevent voters, etc.

There ARE other beneficial limitations on speech. On their merits they tend to provide more pros than cons.

I'm yet to speak to someone who spouts nonsense about all censorship being wrong who actually understands and accepts the consequences that come with it. You'll never talk them round because they've taken an ideological position, without real consideration, so they're not the kind of people who are going to accept a contrary, yet rational, position.

So we have freedom of speech laws so that you can say anything that everyone agrees with?

How does this differ from 1,000 years ago? Did they just randomly outlaw accepted words and phrases then? Or do you think it is possibly that the founding fathers put in freedom of speech to protect speech that many would disagree with, that many would find horrible?

I have no problems as long as you accept the consequences to speech, especially if it includes libel or lies. When there are consequences to speech, it is no longer, in effect 'free'. Maybe free as in beer, but not free as in free.

What you were saying was that you wanted absolute free speech with no consequences. I can't agree with that as, by definition, that actually is sociopathic behavior. It would also lead to the unfortunate inclusion of physical reactions since people, as a whole, do not have

I'm yet to speak to someone who spouts nonsense about all censorship being wrong who actually understands and accepts the consequences that come with it. You'll never talk them round because they've taken an ideological position, without real consideration, so they're not the kind of people who are going to accept a contrary, yet rational, position.

What you are ignoreing is that you are also arguing from an ideological position. You believe that either free speech is not that or important, or some things ar

You are allowed to do exactly that, no one's stopping you, it's simply that there are consequences, this is not censorship.

Censorship is the enforced blocking of information, it's the preventing of it even being broadcast which is exactly what's being asked for here.

If this were the same as punishment for shouting fire in a crowded theatre then the judge would simply fine them for distributing false information or jail the person who posted it for libel etc. This is not what is being done though, this is outright censorship, and yes, it's bad.

"You are allowed to do exactly that, no one's stopping you, it's simply that there are consequences, this is not censorship."Yes it is. Most censorship is not pre-emptive (only copyright infringing videos can really be automatically scanned) any more than people know they will get punished for it. I guess Youtube could try to convert audio to text and then run algorithms on the text to try and figure what is being said, possible, if somewhat advanced.

It's not about being pre-emptive, that's not the issue at stake here. It's about the outright blocking of content, whether that happens immediately, or sometime after the fact.

In the case of shouting fire in a crowded theatre, no one whatsoever is stopping you doing that. They're just saying you're going to get punished if you do it without good reason and put people's lives at risk. It's then upto you if you believe your right to exercise free speech is more i

The point is that some kinds of speech can incite panic and if done for nefarious purposes should be legally limited because the benefit of such a limit outweighs the harm.

Claiming that the people who panicked would be at fault is ridiculous: suppose someone yelled "Sarin!" in a room full of biochemists... They would be RIGHT in assuming they were in immediate mortal danger.

There are better methods of handling this sort of thing that don't apply to shouting fire though-

1) Transparency. If an opponent is making a claim against you then be transparent about the issue and prove them wrong. Allow an independent body to investigate and verify your taxes or whatever is in question.

2) Libel laws. If someone is lying about you, get a libel judgement against them. Even if the election passes most countries have sane enough laws to allow for an election to be ruled invalid based on this

Because that's the price of freedom, and I'm not willing to sacrifice my freedom for any of that temporary safety. Don't get me started on free speech zones and other egregious acts the US government, of all entities, has done to grind the gears of the constitution's spirit of the law. "If we can't remove them, let's just water them down," sort of thing.

Or should we prohibit anyone from speaking a dissenting opinion than the governments, because think of all the people that could be hurt by those word

Because that's the price of freedom, and I'm not willing to sacrifice my freedom for any of that temporary safety... Oh, and people don't have to shout fire in a crowded movie theater anymore -- that's why we have fire alarms.

What about when your "freedom" has a direct impact on my safety? If you yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, there is panic and people fight to escape. People been trampled to death trying to escape. You also fail to address the point that it is completely legal to shout "Fire!" in a theatre if there is indeed a fire.

There is good discussion to be had on whether limiting political speech or paid for speech leading up to an election is good or bad in balance. But thus discussion is so far from useful it's not even amusing.

Well, that does not really help, so instead of accusing X as evil the evening before the voting, I accuse him of being evil 24 hours earlier, and add that he'll certainly get even more evil in the next day?

Basically, it just moves a deadline around, without much of practical value.

I disagree whether the censorship is good or whether good censorship actually exists. I understand the existence of pre-election silence laws (though I may not entirely understand why they're there in the first place - wouldn't it be better to be able to inform yourself about whom you might vote on no matter the period of the voting process? But that's beside the point), but in this case local laws are used to enforce upon content hosted outside the country, which just isn't acceptable. You could make the t

Several things here. Google has offices within the local jurisdiction making them culpable for violations of it. Google can likely restrict access to IP's outside the country like they did with that movie trailer thing a week or so ago. We know they have the ability and they have done it already.

Nothing is to stop you from copying the video and posting it everywhere you can find. The companies that have offices within the country that has local jurisdiction will have to remove it or face the same problems as Google it. The services and companie who do not have local offices can ignore the mandates, law and so on unless they plan on visiting and/or opening local offices up within that jurisdiction in the future. Unless some sort of international treaty with a country they have offices within provides otherwise, Brazil can fine and issue arrest warrant all day long on people not within their jurisdiction and nothing can be done about it outside that unless the companies get within their jurisdiction somehow- invasion, treaty, visiting the country, opening shop within the country and so on..

Now on to censorship. Please do not confuse the right to free speech with a mandate that someone provide you a platform or stage for that speech. If a company has offices in a country and doing business within that country, they are obliged to follow the local laws of the country. If that means blocking access to a video on their servers or removing it entirely, then they have to do it or suffer the penalties of breaking the laws. Google already censors a lot of stuff voluntarily- Google already complies with local laws in certain area they have offices in. It's not a big deal for them to comply with this.

So what you're saying is that i could upload some anti-government stuff onto Youku or whatever is China's Youtube equivalent and the company would be liable just by virtue of residing in the local jurisdiction, even if the country of origin of the upload and the hosting servers themselves were outside the country?

Unacceptable.

I understand how it works NOW, but to me this is a critical case of legal vacuum, where current laws do not accurately reflect reality - punishing the carrier for something that is exp

So what you're saying is that i could upload some anti-government stuff onto Youku or whatever is China's Youtube equivalent and the company would be liable just by virtue of residing in the local jurisdiction, even if the country of origin of the upload and the hosting servers themselves were outside the country?

Unacceptable.

Lets look at it in a little more obvious way. Suppose you live in England and ask me to help you do something. That something is to have merchandise ordered from the internet delivered

Using stolen credit cards (only i am liable, since i am the buyer, the connections originated from my computer and i accepted the transaction, you weren't involved in the buying process in any way - and, also, this is a crime in both countries, which a major and important difference in our case).Tax dodging (we're both liable in theory, depends too much on individual import/VAT laws - not applicable in our case since packets are not dutiable)Wil

The basis of it all is that the Internet does not translate well to real life, and, as such, requires a whole new set of laws to accurately represent what is actually happening between computers.

Not really new laws but common sense on existing laws. The first analogy failed but it didn't fail. Google, who is making the video available, is located within the jurisdiction of the country with the laws, and they are breaking real laws- even if they are ridiculous laws.

And basically here is the crux of the problem the politicians seem to have with the Internet - they literally treat it as a singularly-owned company that can be strongarmed to subscribe to their notions of legality.

I really like your example of AM/FM radio stations, because it is much more closer to how the Internet functions than how a TV station might. Sure, if needed, the Internet can be limited, or even cut off entirely to an area of a country - this is within the realm of economically viable technical

Now on to censorship. Please do not confuse the right to free speech with a mandate that someone provide you a platform or stage for that speech

Sorry, but that's a straw man. If a "platform or stage" (ie: YouTube) is being constrained by law from broadcasting material, then it most definitely a case of free speech, not of an individual demanding they be provided with a channel.

You can argue whether it's justified in this case, and as others have noted, there are legitimate reasons for certain types of speech in certain situations to be restricted. But it most definitely a free speech issue.

Sorry, but that's a straw man. If a "platform or stage" (ie: YouTube) is being constrained by law from broadcasting material, then it most definitely a case of free speech, not of an individual demanding they be provided with a channel.

Well, it is. If it is illegal to block the road, set up and amplifier, and start preaching one Monday morning while everyone is trying to get to work, then doing it would be illegal. You are still being constrained by a law- it makes no difference how free or what speech it w

It's a difficult case; I can easily see this becoming an abusive precedent, where pernicious lawsuits are filed just to block Google/Youtube access to LEGITIMATE information on the web about a candidate.

It seems absurd on the face of it to suggest that it's Google's responsibility to block access to specific data in specific regions according to their local election schedule. If my local town of 1000 people has a mayoral election, can we 'insist' that Google block politically relevant (whatever that mean?)

BS. "Google" has not, intentionally or not, done anything here. Some Brazilian citizen has chosen to violate their laws, try going after the actual problem.

Consider this from a slightly different angle - If Google had no official presence in Brazil, how would this headline read? Hint - More along the lines of a Great Firewall style pissing-in-the-wind, than some sort of BS "arrest the messenger" attack on free speech.

At least from the article this is not a 24 ban but rather a generalized law which prohibits negative treatments of candidates.

The USA has problems with financing related issues but I don't think there is anything good about generalized bans on negative advertising during a campaign. One of the nice things about US elections is with most any candidate for major office their opponent tells me all the bad stuff about them.

*but* if you were contacted by the government of Mozambique, where you happen to have a regional office, notifying that one of your files is in violation of their electoral laws... You can either block that file for Mozambique, or remove that file until it's no longer in violation of their laws, or close down your Mozambique operations and claim you have nothing at stake there. Google *has* Brazilian offices, and they were notified in due time of the violation.

"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."

I don't know about this particular law, but laws regarding promotional material for elections (or defamatory material) are generally there to help prevent corruption. Same applies to campaign finance, which is essentially the same thing. If you're an American in the last few years after Citizens United, you've seen how quickly things can go south when the gloves are completely removed.

It's nice to have an absolute ideal to quote and strive for, but the absolute usually fails in the real world.

We have almost exactly the same laws as Brazil over here in Poland regarding the pre-election period (the so-called "Electorial Silence", where no campaigning is permitted). Since recovering from the USSR, the only thing this law was good for is getting the tv and radio to STFU. Meanwhile, corruption during this period ran rampant - the currently ruling party was almost always running its shady business during this period, while the opposing parties were buying votes and otherwise screwing with the voting process. They were caught multiple times, but due to the law, it was forbidden to report on it during this period.

I'm an American. It is unclear to me after Citizen's United if things went south or not. The positives don't tend to get reported. As unlimited donations to superpacs have become the norm, the $500 / plate dinners have started disappearing. The petty corruption of raising money for ads that every congressmen was subject to have decreased. I don't like the whims of individual billionaires being news worthy, but OTOH the whims of billionaires are far less undermining to genuine democracy than millionai

Good job, Brazil: If they don't listen to the law, give them a fine high enough that it's relevant, and arrest the responsible people.

I'm not choosing sides whether this is good or bad censorship. I'm just delighted that they have the balls to stand up to large companies. Not every country does that... and in almost every case the responsible management get away with it without any punishment. Most punishments are fines, which will just slightly reduce profit. Arresting the management might get their attention.

I would like to agree with you. But as a Brazilian I am sorry to inform you that it is merely another case of our judges who think they are gods and wanting to show who is the boss (but without the necessary competence to do so). If the case involved a "mere ordinary mortal" like me, they would not do anything about

Arrest the responsible people? Did Google produce the video? Did the specific Brazilian Google President produce the video personally himself and post it on his own Youtube account?

No.

The responsible people are those who produced and uploaded the video. Not Youtube.

There is nothing inherently illegal with the video, however most countries in the world have very specific laws around advertising just before an election and all forms of media need to comply with those laws, it doesn't mater who produced it, what matters is that google refused to remove it in a timely manner. In most western countries this is actually considered a pretty severe breach of advertising and election laws that can result in criminal prosecutions.

Brazil’s electoral law has several restrictions on what opponents or critics can air on television and radio about candidates for office — even comedic needling of politicians is banned during electoral season. The Internet’s role in these cases, until now, was not legally explored, as the government does not license the internet and was considered by most exempt from the law.

...In the northeastern state of Paraiba, a judge also ordered the imprisonment of another Google executive in Brazil earlier this month, also for not removing videos from YouTube attacking a mayoral candidate. That order was overruled by a higher court.

Nope. This is (yet again) about a US company trying to pretend that only US law applies as soon as they enter another country. Google is just the most visible example of that, and I support this decision.

If you want to sell services in a country and generate revenue, you damn well have to follow the local laws there or get fined. Simple.

Nope. This is (yet again) about a US company trying to pretend that only US law applies as soon as they enter another country.

I don't think so.

I think this is Google arguing that Google shouldn't be responsible for policing what people choose to post on their service. Instead, Google appears to believe that the person who posted the video in violation of the law should be held accountable -- and that's not an unreasonable position, particularly since the question goes far beyond just this case, or election laws, or even YouTube.

My perception is that Google is quite rational about these things, and does abide by local laws. I

Oh, so your inability to understand the laws is then an excuse to simply ignore them?

Actually, here in Brazil people ignoring a law is usually reason enough for it to start being ignored by law agents too. This is so common we've even developed a language expression for these cases: "The law on 'x' hasn't caught." In fact, in cases were the government is really adamant about getting people to start following a certain rule, they go about approving a similar law a few more times over a wide time span, so that one can say something to the effect of "the law on 'x' finally caught on the fourth

The leftists took over in January 2003. Before 2003, Brazil's economy was just average, being the giant poor country. After Lula da Silva's two periods and half of Dilma Roussef's first, Brazil is *the* Latin American giant. Its currency is the strongest in the region, and its GNP growth is unrivalled. So, "punishing success" and this "change in policy" that is yet to show up in economic numbers... I'm sorry, you are somewhat mistaken.

You make it sound like the economy was shit before Lula took office in 2003, and he fixed it. But anyone who lives in Brazil knows this is not true.

Brazil's current economic situation started to take shape in as early as 1994 with Plano Real [wikipedia.org]. With inflation under control and general stabilization, companies started investing in the country, and the economy started growing a lot. That was slowed down a lot by the economic crisis in Argentina around 2000 [wikipedia.org] -- Argentina is a really important trade partner for Br

Greetings to the parallel world, stranger! Almost all technological, economic and social indexes have improved since the 90s in Brazil. The country improving dramatically, despite the left versus right babbling.

I guess living in Europe since 2005 made you forget how things are here. Or are you just one of the government's astortufers? (Yeah, that's exactly the government's line: "It is the developped countries that are keepeing us poor! Really! Don't look at your own government!")